Hey, so you know this "space marine" thing?

[Dannyalcatraz]

Whoa ... is that so? If it is, I would imagine that many many folks don't realize it. Certainly, purchasing a video (in whatever form) doesn't feel the same as renting an apartment. (And, are the laws about several cases, say: Software licenses, movie or song licenses, apartment rental, auto rental, that much the same?)

No analogy is perfect, but the basic truth is the same: a license and a contract for sale transfer rights that define different forms of ownership.

For instance, every license contains terms in which the user of the property can have their use ended or limited by the actual owner. No contract of sale has that.

Most are unaware. Or if aware, can do little about it, aside from becoming a hermit.

The power of voting with your $$$ is powerful, but you need significant numbers & resolve. If 30% of the market for a product like software decided to not support the licensing model anymore, it would seriously hurt many companies. All but the biggest would be pushed to the edge of ruin. Double that and even Microsoft, et alia would be on the verge of capitulation pretty quickly.

I gotta say: These both need better evidence. They sound more true than perhaps they are.

Your own example provides evidence of the former.

Of the latter, its less a function of mass production for an undifferentiated market than the actual licensing process.

Apartments are made to different standards and are less customizable than condos. There are furniture and consumer goods brands that are sold exclusively to rental companies. Etc.

 

[tomBitonti]

Some questions:

If I went into bankruptcy, and had unreleased IP, could I retain ownership of that? Would it matter if the material was an unreleased track, or, say, a private diary?

For IP such as 3.5E, or Alternity, or unreleased tracks, or a private diary, what seems to be a key difference is the presence of externalities which contribute to the value of the IP and which depend on the availability of the IP.

If I've bought an author's books, I don't lose value if that author doesn't ever publish a diary. (Although, per my next case, I would lose value if I bought books one and two of a trilogy and the author wrote but chose not to publish book three. It might be incomplete, or it might be complete and the author just decided not to publish it.)

If I've bought a game which requires that players independently purchase IP material of the game, then the publisher ceasing to publish that game seems to harm my prior purchaser of the game. While there is no explicit contract to continue making the product available, is there, or should there be, an implicit "social contract" to keep it available? (Allowing for a surcharge for the effort?)

Thx!

TomB

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

That is a disaster waiting to happen - and in some nooks and corners it already is! Basically, a new business model - which will likely require some modification of the law to enable it - is urgently required if we are not to have a situation where IP holders are theoretically all-powerful with their own IP, but practically powerless to stop unauthorised use.

Not necessarily new, actually, but possibly old. Back in the 1980s, a lot of software had code in it that destroyed functionality- crippling the program- if it were illegally copied. Some have talked about going back to that.

Others have discussed software and even hardware modeled after malware, destroying illegal copies of software.

Essentially, just like the old explosive dye packs that were sometimes attached to goods in stores- the tier got the goods, but they were no longer useful for most purposes.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If I went into bankruptcy, and had unreleased IP, could I retain ownership of that? Would it matter if the material was an unreleased track, or, say, a private diary?

(Well, Bankruptcy is a very specialized field with its own rules, so take this with a grain of salt...)

It depends on the nature of the IP, the entity going bankrupt, and the kind of bankruptcy. In certain cases, you could lose everything- except your diary- in others, you might not lose much IP at all.

For IP such as 3.5E, or Alternity, or unreleased tracks, or a private diary, what seems to be a key difference is the presence of externalities which contribute to the value of the IP and which depend on the availability of the IP.

I'm not sure what your question is. Could you restate?

If I've bought a game which requires that players independently purchase IP material of the game, then the publisher ceasing to publish that game seems to harm my prior purchaser of the game. While there is no explicit contract to continue making the product available, is there, or should there be, an implicit "social contract" to keep it available? (Allowing for a surcharge for the effort?)

You can't force someone to stay in business. If you want that product to continue to exist, its time to find some $$$ and a lawyer to negotiate a sale of the IP.

 

[tomBitonti]

No analogy is perfect, but the basic truth is the same: a license and a contract for sale transfer rights that define different forms of ownership.

For instance, every license contains terms in which the user of the property can have their use ended or limited by the actual owner. No contract of sale has that.




The power of voting with your $$$ is powerful, but you need significant numbers & resolve. If 30% of the market for a product like software decided to not support the licensing model anymore, it would seriously hurt many companies. All but the biggest would be pushed to the edge of ruin. Double that and even Microsoft, et alia would be on the verge of capitulation pretty quickly.






Your own example provides evidence of the former.

Of the latter, its less a function of mass production for an undifferentiated market than the actual licensing process.

Apartments are made to different standards and are less customizable than condos. There are furniture and consumer goods brands that are sold exclusively to rental companies. Etc.

I'm not convinced. I can see an argument that licensing provided a more efficient way to price content. But I also see a tendency to overreach in copyright holders -- to consider their material theirs and only theirs alone in perpetuity. I thought there was to be a balance between a public interest in freeing ideas to be used within society and a private interest to profit from creating those ideas. There seems to be a lot of "mine mine mine" and "I made this entirely and absolutely all by myself" from copyright holders. (Not to say that consumers don't also say a lot of "gimme gimme gimme" and "I don't want to pay for that".)

For quality and uniformity, for branding, my understanding is that achieving a consistent quality is a very major goal of the branding process. That is, corporations go to great lengths to ensure their product meets a set standard and uniform product content. McDonalds all over the world provide Big Macs that are nearly the same. Toyota Camry's are made to a standard. Is licensing necessary for products to have high quality and uniform content? Would quality and uniformity be less without licensing?

Thx!
TomB

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm not convinced. I can see an argument that licensing provided a more efficient way to price content. But I also see a tendency to overreach in copyright holders -- to consider their material theirs and only theirs alone in perpetuity. I thought there was to be a balance between a public interest in freeing ideas to be used within society and a private interest to profit from creating those ideas. There seems to be a lot of "mine mine mine" and "I made this entirely and absolutely all by myself" from copyright holders. (Not to say that consumers don't also say a lot of "gimme gimme gimme" and "I don't want to pay for that".)

Any IP holder who thinks that their IP is theirs in perpetuity is operating under as much of a misapprehension of law as is someone who is a data thief claiming "information wants to be free!"

Is licensing necessary for products to have high quality and uniform content? Would quality and uniformity be less without licensing?

Uniformity is an almost necessary consequence of licensing, but licensing is not the sole cause of uniformity.

Every McDonalds has a very specific recipe that- but for certain cultural, religious or logistical factors- ensures a high level of uniformity.

A meal made at a family owned diner might vary greatly in quality or flavor depending on who is actually doing the cooking. (There was a Tex-Mex Place I used to go to that you could tell who was doing the cooking based on the spiciness of the salsa...)

But uniformity or variability can also arise from your manufacturing methods. There are guitars that are made almost entirely by machine, and others that are made mostly by hand. The former are much more uniform.

And one of the biggest guitar brands out there- Gibson- primarily uses the latter method for their mid- to high-end guitars. There's always discussions about their QC...but their brand is strong. Give most guitarists a choice between a Gibson and another brand of guitar with the same specs, sight unseen- even one from a subsidiary of Gibson- and they'll take the Gibson almost every time.

 

[tomBitonti]

Every McDonalds has a very specific recipe that- but for certain cultural, religious or logistical factors- ensures a high level of uniformity.

I don't think the recipe itself guarantees much of anything. Corporate controls over materials and audits and enforcement are what maintain uniformity. As a tie to trademarks, I imagine individual stores can't continue to use the McDonalds Trademark if they don't satisfy corporate controls.

Thx!

TomB

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I've been to the McDonalds restaurants AND production facilities of several different countries. For brand goodwill and logistical reasons, they tend to source their stuff within country: German beef & wheat in Germany; Russian in Russia. The recipe is what controls uniformity.

 

[Nellisir]

Every McDonalds has a very specific recipe that- but for certain cultural, religious or logistical factors- ensures a high level of uniformity.

One pizza from Pizza Hut in Bangkok taught me about the cultural exceptions to uniform recipes.

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted